... so do it well. What do we talk? List of course, one that should crown this decade. I therefore propose my top 10, in two parts, given the length of explanation. I wanted to avoid two to three words that are easy to categorize launches quickly without thinking too much and suggest rather a beginning of analysis, a line of thought, brainstorm that maybe I will finish later. Whenever possible, however, have not seen some of these movies from their theatrical releases. The length of the text accompanying each film has nothing to do with their respective wealth, but more with my memory.
The order is more or less random, except for the first three, my pedestal of the decade. I do not like award titles and playing the comparison, it is really impossible to point with certainty the film of the decade, exercise is especially interesting in retrospect. The list serves as a benchmark, she portrays more of me elsewhere that in recent years because these choices are primarily personal. Finally, while I often criticize the abundance of lists that usually does not exceed their function consumerist (that I have not eaten yet and I'm told most?), This does not prevent me from reading them all and I dote. It is also to avoid falling into that same trap of the simple proposition My favorite cultural analysis to simple classification. Do not look, however, an image of the Noughties, a sociological portrait of the film which ends a decade, and any attempt to circumscribe the latest trends and it's all about heart strokes. So
:
I'm Not There (2007, Todd Haynes)
I'm Not There aptly title: this is not a film about Dylan, even though it it will be ubiquitous. Dylan is a pretext, the canvas from which Todd Haines continues his reflections on identity, and here especially on the identity of the artist in connection with the Others. Far From Heaven equally successful, working the same themes, the inability to really express themselves, prison identity is society, the difficulty of defining for others. "Hell is other people" is the phrase that Haines continues to work from film to film. The
(the) character (s) I'm Not There represent various facets of the same personality is bursting a protagonist in some of its manifestations, but it is not real facets of this artist, rather than those that the company has stuck. There is this unforgettable piece of bravery that summarizes the whole movie, the artwork and the deconstruction of the song Ballad of a Thin Man: Haynes started the sequence by using images explicitly the words of Dylan, it connects to interpretation in fact, the critic played by Greenwood. It feels personally targeted by Jude Dylan, he is put in a cage as critical in a cage by the artist's interpretations: You hand in your ticket And you go watch the Geek Immediately Who walks up to you When he hears you speak And says, "How Does It Feel To Be Such A freak? "For the character of Greenwood, the geek is the artist who exhibited normally takes revenge by turning in turn critical freak like Jude likes to do justly, responding to criticism by other issues , by denying him the right to impose an interpretation, therefore an identity. Then the song stops, and Haynes destroyed everything he has just built: suddenly, the Black Panthers appropriate the song and reverses the interpretation of the critic (the freak, it's blacks ). Who is right? Both interpretations are allowed, and both trap if the artist by looking after it too much to comply with these imposed identities. Dylan, in fact, attempts throughout his career to escape the conventional identities, he plays with them to better thwart them, but society does not want an elusive artist, she wants to categorize, identify, to better assimilate . These identities imposed stifling, where the character of Richard Gere, representation of the artist who seeks to escape from society by taking refuge in his own universe, where even there it will be chased (the dual character of Bruce Greenwood).
The staging works well, Pennebaker pastiche here, here and here Godard Fellini, seeking identity in these styles, seeking to define themselves through these references, these cinematic conventions. At the same time, these references are an illusion, a movie buff to catch if you will, as Dylan himself defies his critics, particularly Jude Cate Blanchett, since Haines is not identified nor Fellini nor to Pennebaker, it does not attempt to say "that's influenced me and who therefore constitute my identity as a filmmaker "He rather plays with cinematic codes to better deconstruct, like Dylan fingered folk, rock, blues, gospel, etc.. Dylan is not a folk singer or a rock singer, he is everything at once, none of that and more, I'm Not There is not a film of Fellini, Godard or there is all this both times, nothing of this and much more.
Still Life (2006, Jia Zhang Ke)
This title is false: on the contrary, in Zhang Ke, it is still in transition, straddling between a quaint world that is lost gradually in a modern world quietly fantastic. So filmmaker movement, change, Zhang Ke is a nostalgic look at a China that goes, whether under the weight of an exaggerated artificiality ( The World ) or water from a river whose level is that rise, result of a dam, so that in a modern Still Life literally drown her past. However, movement is slow, it does not reverse a world in one day, there is a shift patient and gradual, made by planes of infinite patience, attention to these subtle tremors of a world still surviving. An appearance of immobility, but in fact everything moves. Zhang Ke captures what is this fleeting transitional process, which means it is pure cinema, as is Kracauer we discussed here . This tells us that German critic's own film is to capture what's real can not be transmitted otherwise is to say, just a reality in motion. There is also a fantastic feeling in Zhang Ke, which occurs as a modern incomprehensible (monuments taking off, UFOs that streak the sky) as a daily newspaper that escapes us because of its everyday same one to which we Never wear attention, but here we are delivered in all its mysterious glory, as is Kracauer.
We shall see that the majority of that list of movies that play on the fantastic feeling when dealing with dual universe (fiction-reality dream-reality, identity-imposed real identity, former world-modern world, etc.. ) but all these films are far from any dualism: they are films on transition, on what is common to these apparently conflicting worlds. It is therefore of cinema.
Hidden (2005, Michael Haneke)
I have not seen the tape white, but I suspect it could replace Hidden . Haneke, in any case, must appear on all charts respectable. It is indeed the only filmmaker who can create suspense from still shots on an empty street. Is that in Hidden , we never know exactly what we watch, who filmed the images we see. Haneke plays so very clever on the concept of viewpoint to destabilize our viewing position and force us to be an active control, thus to participate more closely in the action, without the comfortable distance that we typically offers fiction.
Much has been said about the anti-colonial message Hidden on his denunciation of the oppression of the Algerians by France: George refuses to be responsible for the actions he has placed child, despite a repressed guilt, like France still refuses his responsibility vis-à-vis the current living conditions of immigrants. George child acting, however, not by racism but just like a child who wants to keep the attention of his parents is not to say that racism, precisely, is a childish reflex? George sees himself assailed by anonymous videos and drawings, his aggressive response is understandable, to some extent. Haneke is not the moralizing that often accused of being, his films are far more nuanced: the actions of George is wrong, he attacked a man from a half-proofs (link terrorism-Iraq is obvious), but at the same time we understand his behavior and we can not condemn him completely. The problem is that he refuses to admit his fault. This discreet handshake in the last shot of the film, between the son of George and Majid, almost imperceptible detail that has caused much ink, would not it an act of optimism for the next generation?
That would ignore the views of this picture, in Haneke's central concept: it is an overall plan and fixed length, recalling the original plan, so a video. This is not a plan omniscient and impersonal merely tell, there is an image shot by a protagonist, the same one (or perhaps another, whatever) who terrorizes George. It's like waking up the monster at the end of a horror film: the beast was believed buried, but she is alive. Who shoots? The unanswered question, which was often discussed. Consider this: the drama occurs unknown when a camera is pointed in a comfortable middle-class couple, their homes are piling up books and videos, their culture. Them, they are used to scan the other, from the comfort of these fictions, but this time they are no longer spectators, they are observed, and this reversal of position does not suit them, because they all have one something to hide at first, but also because they do not accept that call into question their lifestyle while they allow themselves to do good for others (George's attitude toward Majid shows well). Who wants some social conventions and upset by the video if this is Haneke himself? And is it not also specifically at the viewer that this camera is pointing?
The "Who shoots these videos? Is a typical MacGuffin, a lure that is used to link us to the story more conventional thriller. Interest is also the abrupt end tells us quite enough. Videos submitted to George used to wake his guilt, as the film itself seeks to arouse guilt French; even a clue as what Haneke could be the author of these videos. Strangely, there is an implicit criticism of the process itself: it is not videos that agonize as George, it is rather the designs that challenge personally. Haneke addresses a less ferocious on TV in this film and our desensitization to images, but this, in his usual, is not absent, when George and his wife discuss their missing son, he is back Plan-a TV that broadcasts news of the Third World. There are three possible interpretations of this plan, all related: the simplest is that parents are too focused on their personal problems and they forget the rest of the world, while the latter is a consequence, it the dilemma the viewer: what should he look at him, fiction Haneke on a couple in distress or disturbing imagery behind on authentic events? and finally, another consequence: how is it that our eye is hopelessly attracted to this TV in the background while we watch a fiction? Television therefore draws our attention, but at the same time we let in the background (the vast majority of spectators are to be ignored to focus on the couple), that its role: it entertains. This can not be simply a video image that George wakes up, it will be a drawing, image rather than an estate, because the flood of TV buries the difference in abundance, hides the meaning in the differentiation. Haneke's film, and all his movies, is trying to find the primary power of childlike, he wants to give the images a force that denies the television constantly. Considering the visceral impact of his films, one can say he succeeded very well.
Gran Torino (2008, Clint Eastwood)
This choice will probably appear less obvious, but it must be emphasized the impeccable work of Eastwood during this decade: Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby , Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima , Changeling and now Invictus ; Eastwood ample dominates Hollywood. Gran Torino, perhaps less successful than others, remains his most personal and perhaps most important in its own mythology. He finished his career here as an actor with a rare grace and elegance. Eastwood reworks the same character from the Leone westerns, the character he honed role-role, or rather it is morally walk: unnamed killer, he gradually learns to distance themselves from the violence that has made its mark up Unforgiven final where violence is used reluctantly. Gran Torino is a reply to Unforgiven, Eastwood corrects the last time his work: the situation is the same, we must act of revenge because the enemy is too far gone, there will be a duel. In Unforgiven, Eastwood abandons violence that had pushed so far, but in Gran Torino Finally, he made the right choice, he refuses any violent act. The final Gran Torino is very moving in the context of the work of Eastwood and in this sense the symbolism quite supported (Christ figure, the actor who sacrifices himself) is not a caricature: not only the young Vietnamese Eastwood bequeathed his old tank is also to us viewers, it's not just Kowalski who sacrifices himself, Eastwood is itself means that we as his gift, which kills his character as it is officially issued at the end of its stroke which leaves us the way his last teaching. Gran Torino has its faults, but the last act of a player in the paths of the most important American filmography recently, one of the few stars who chose his roles and has worked to make us follow his own thinking and philosophical journey.
I Do not Want To Sleep Alone (2006, Tsai Ming-Liang)
This list is the movie that I remember the least, that I feel less able to analyzed. It seems that we as a problem of distributors Montreal, which seems to deny us our pleasures Asian constantly. To my knowledge, no Ming-liang have been screened in Montreal, outside festival and cinematheque. When will we see her Faces ? I still rage against the lack of Voyage du Ballon Rouge (Hou Hsiao-hsien) in our rooms, the DVD does not do justice to such a great movie, with its transfer botching missed the whole game about colors.
Enough wailing, the memory of this film is not so vague, some plans are embedded in me, but for the final, especially, that I retain the Ming-Liang over another (What time is it there? would equally have been part of this list): no sound, as water on the screen, then the three protagonists appear, drifting on the same mattress floating music takes off, more aesthetic emotion of the decade, a QED title and therefore the work of Ming-Liang, focusing on urban isolation. Need we say more? That Ming-Liang is the largest contemporary cameraman? Tati he revives his way to create subtle visual gags? He shoots better than anyone loneliness? He can embody the music on the screen, giving his pop songs with lyrics seemingly mundane reality and a truth most devastating? Through his paintings anecdotal, Ming-Liang created the best atmospheres bittersweet, he plays with the absurd (in the sense of Camus) and delusional behavior (back all the clocks in Taipei to Paris time) to discuss the modern disillusionment, making it the largest and most important contemporary filmmakers simply.
suite very soon ...
The order is more or less random, except for the first three, my pedestal of the decade. I do not like award titles and playing the comparison, it is really impossible to point with certainty the film of the decade, exercise is especially interesting in retrospect. The list serves as a benchmark, she portrays more of me elsewhere that in recent years because these choices are primarily personal. Finally, while I often criticize the abundance of lists that usually does not exceed their function consumerist (that I have not eaten yet and I'm told most?), This does not prevent me from reading them all and I dote. It is also to avoid falling into that same trap of the simple proposition My favorite cultural analysis to simple classification. Do not look, however, an image of the Noughties, a sociological portrait of the film which ends a decade, and any attempt to circumscribe the latest trends and it's all about heart strokes. So
:
I'm Not There (2007, Todd Haynes)
I'm Not There aptly title: this is not a film about Dylan, even though it it will be ubiquitous. Dylan is a pretext, the canvas from which Todd Haines continues his reflections on identity, and here especially on the identity of the artist in connection with the Others. Far From Heaven equally successful, working the same themes, the inability to really express themselves, prison identity is society, the difficulty of defining for others. "Hell is other people" is the phrase that Haines continues to work from film to film. The (the) character (s) I'm Not There represent various facets of the same personality is bursting a protagonist in some of its manifestations, but it is not real facets of this artist, rather than those that the company has stuck. There is this unforgettable piece of bravery that summarizes the whole movie, the artwork and the deconstruction of the song Ballad of a Thin Man: Haynes started the sequence by using images explicitly the words of Dylan, it connects to interpretation in fact, the critic played by Greenwood. It feels personally targeted by Jude Dylan, he is put in a cage as critical in a cage by the artist's interpretations: You hand in your ticket And you go watch the Geek Immediately Who walks up to you When he hears you speak And says, "How Does It Feel To Be Such A freak? "For the character of Greenwood, the geek is the artist who exhibited normally takes revenge by turning in turn critical freak like Jude likes to do justly, responding to criticism by other issues , by denying him the right to impose an interpretation, therefore an identity. Then the song stops, and Haynes destroyed everything he has just built: suddenly, the Black Panthers appropriate the song and reverses the interpretation of the critic (the freak, it's blacks ). Who is right? Both interpretations are allowed, and both trap if the artist by looking after it too much to comply with these imposed identities. Dylan, in fact, attempts throughout his career to escape the conventional identities, he plays with them to better thwart them, but society does not want an elusive artist, she wants to categorize, identify, to better assimilate . These identities imposed stifling, where the character of Richard Gere, representation of the artist who seeks to escape from society by taking refuge in his own universe, where even there it will be chased (the dual character of Bruce Greenwood).
The staging works well, Pennebaker pastiche here, here and here Godard Fellini, seeking identity in these styles, seeking to define themselves through these references, these cinematic conventions. At the same time, these references are an illusion, a movie buff to catch if you will, as Dylan himself defies his critics, particularly Jude Cate Blanchett, since Haines is not identified nor Fellini nor to Pennebaker, it does not attempt to say "that's influenced me and who therefore constitute my identity as a filmmaker "He rather plays with cinematic codes to better deconstruct, like Dylan fingered folk, rock, blues, gospel, etc.. Dylan is not a folk singer or a rock singer, he is everything at once, none of that and more, I'm Not There is not a film of Fellini, Godard or there is all this both times, nothing of this and much more.
Still Life (2006, Jia Zhang Ke)
This title is false: on the contrary, in Zhang Ke, it is still in transition, straddling between a quaint world that is lost gradually in a modern world quietly fantastic. So filmmaker movement, change, Zhang Ke is a nostalgic look at a China that goes, whether under the weight of an exaggerated artificiality ( The World ) or water from a river whose level is that rise, result of a dam, so that in a modern Still Life literally drown her past. However, movement is slow, it does not reverse a world in one day, there is a shift patient and gradual, made by planes of infinite patience, attention to these subtle tremors of a world still surviving. An appearance of immobility, but in fact everything moves. Zhang Ke captures what is this fleeting transitional process, which means it is pure cinema, as is Kracauer we discussed here . This tells us that German critic's own film is to capture what's real can not be transmitted otherwise is to say, just a reality in motion. There is also a fantastic feeling in Zhang Ke, which occurs as a modern incomprehensible (monuments taking off, UFOs that streak the sky) as a daily newspaper that escapes us because of its everyday same one to which we Never wear attention, but here we are delivered in all its mysterious glory, as is Kracauer. We shall see that the majority of that list of movies that play on the fantastic feeling when dealing with dual universe (fiction-reality dream-reality, identity-imposed real identity, former world-modern world, etc.. ) but all these films are far from any dualism: they are films on transition, on what is common to these apparently conflicting worlds. It is therefore of cinema.
Hidden (2005, Michael Haneke)
I have not seen the tape white, but I suspect it could replace Hidden . Haneke, in any case, must appear on all charts respectable. It is indeed the only filmmaker who can create suspense from still shots on an empty street. Is that in Hidden , we never know exactly what we watch, who filmed the images we see. Haneke plays so very clever on the concept of viewpoint to destabilize our viewing position and force us to be an active control, thus to participate more closely in the action, without the comfortable distance that we typically offers fiction. Much has been said about the anti-colonial message Hidden on his denunciation of the oppression of the Algerians by France: George refuses to be responsible for the actions he has placed child, despite a repressed guilt, like France still refuses his responsibility vis-à-vis the current living conditions of immigrants. George child acting, however, not by racism but just like a child who wants to keep the attention of his parents is not to say that racism, precisely, is a childish reflex? George sees himself assailed by anonymous videos and drawings, his aggressive response is understandable, to some extent. Haneke is not the moralizing that often accused of being, his films are far more nuanced: the actions of George is wrong, he attacked a man from a half-proofs (link terrorism-Iraq is obvious), but at the same time we understand his behavior and we can not condemn him completely. The problem is that he refuses to admit his fault. This discreet handshake in the last shot of the film, between the son of George and Majid, almost imperceptible detail that has caused much ink, would not it an act of optimism for the next generation?
That would ignore the views of this picture, in Haneke's central concept: it is an overall plan and fixed length, recalling the original plan, so a video. This is not a plan omniscient and impersonal merely tell, there is an image shot by a protagonist, the same one (or perhaps another, whatever) who terrorizes George. It's like waking up the monster at the end of a horror film: the beast was believed buried, but she is alive. Who shoots? The unanswered question, which was often discussed. Consider this: the drama occurs unknown when a camera is pointed in a comfortable middle-class couple, their homes are piling up books and videos, their culture. Them, they are used to scan the other, from the comfort of these fictions, but this time they are no longer spectators, they are observed, and this reversal of position does not suit them, because they all have one something to hide at first, but also because they do not accept that call into question their lifestyle while they allow themselves to do good for others (George's attitude toward Majid shows well). Who wants some social conventions and upset by the video if this is Haneke himself? And is it not also specifically at the viewer that this camera is pointing?
The "Who shoots these videos? Is a typical MacGuffin, a lure that is used to link us to the story more conventional thriller. Interest is also the abrupt end tells us quite enough. Videos submitted to George used to wake his guilt, as the film itself seeks to arouse guilt French; even a clue as what Haneke could be the author of these videos. Strangely, there is an implicit criticism of the process itself: it is not videos that agonize as George, it is rather the designs that challenge personally. Haneke addresses a less ferocious on TV in this film and our desensitization to images, but this, in his usual, is not absent, when George and his wife discuss their missing son, he is back Plan-a TV that broadcasts news of the Third World. There are three possible interpretations of this plan, all related: the simplest is that parents are too focused on their personal problems and they forget the rest of the world, while the latter is a consequence, it the dilemma the viewer: what should he look at him, fiction Haneke on a couple in distress or disturbing imagery behind on authentic events? and finally, another consequence: how is it that our eye is hopelessly attracted to this TV in the background while we watch a fiction? Television therefore draws our attention, but at the same time we let in the background (the vast majority of spectators are to be ignored to focus on the couple), that its role: it entertains. This can not be simply a video image that George wakes up, it will be a drawing, image rather than an estate, because the flood of TV buries the difference in abundance, hides the meaning in the differentiation. Haneke's film, and all his movies, is trying to find the primary power of childlike, he wants to give the images a force that denies the television constantly. Considering the visceral impact of his films, one can say he succeeded very well.
Gran Torino (2008, Clint Eastwood)
This choice will probably appear less obvious, but it must be emphasized the impeccable work of Eastwood during this decade: Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby , Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima , Changeling and now Invictus ; Eastwood ample dominates Hollywood. Gran Torino, perhaps less successful than others, remains his most personal and perhaps most important in its own mythology. He finished his career here as an actor with a rare grace and elegance. Eastwood reworks the same character from the Leone westerns, the character he honed role-role, or rather it is morally walk: unnamed killer, he gradually learns to distance themselves from the violence that has made its mark up Unforgiven final where violence is used reluctantly. Gran Torino is a reply to Unforgiven, Eastwood corrects the last time his work: the situation is the same, we must act of revenge because the enemy is too far gone, there will be a duel. In Unforgiven, Eastwood abandons violence that had pushed so far, but in Gran Torino Finally, he made the right choice, he refuses any violent act. The final Gran Torino is very moving in the context of the work of Eastwood and in this sense the symbolism quite supported (Christ figure, the actor who sacrifices himself) is not a caricature: not only the young Vietnamese Eastwood bequeathed his old tank is also to us viewers, it's not just Kowalski who sacrifices himself, Eastwood is itself means that we as his gift, which kills his character as it is officially issued at the end of its stroke which leaves us the way his last teaching. Gran Torino has its faults, but the last act of a player in the paths of the most important American filmography recently, one of the few stars who chose his roles and has worked to make us follow his own thinking and philosophical journey. I Do not Want To Sleep Alone (2006, Tsai Ming-Liang)
This list is the movie that I remember the least, that I feel less able to analyzed. It seems that we as a problem of distributors Montreal, which seems to deny us our pleasures Asian constantly. To my knowledge, no Ming-liang have been screened in Montreal, outside festival and cinematheque. When will we see her Faces ? I still rage against the lack of Voyage du Ballon Rouge (Hou Hsiao-hsien) in our rooms, the DVD does not do justice to such a great movie, with its transfer botching missed the whole game about colors. Enough wailing, the memory of this film is not so vague, some plans are embedded in me, but for the final, especially, that I retain the Ming-Liang over another (What time is it there? would equally have been part of this list): no sound, as water on the screen, then the three protagonists appear, drifting on the same mattress floating music takes off, more aesthetic emotion of the decade, a QED title and therefore the work of Ming-Liang, focusing on urban isolation. Need we say more? That Ming-Liang is the largest contemporary cameraman? Tati he revives his way to create subtle visual gags? He shoots better than anyone loneliness? He can embody the music on the screen, giving his pop songs with lyrics seemingly mundane reality and a truth most devastating? Through his paintings anecdotal, Ming-Liang created the best atmospheres bittersweet, he plays with the absurd (in the sense of Camus) and delusional behavior (back all the clocks in Taipei to Paris time) to discuss the modern disillusionment, making it the largest and most important contemporary filmmakers simply.
suite very soon ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment